Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Hotfile Corp. et al

Filing 320

NOTICE by Hotfile Corp. re 318 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment PUBLICLY FILED VERSION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Errata, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit)(Munn, Janet)

EXHIBIT 11

Message

Page 1 of 4

Gupta, Deepak (22) x4419
From:

[e-mail]

Sent:

Thursday, May 05, 2011 4:57 PM

To:

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Disney v. Hotfile

Duane, unless I'm missing something, it appears that you have provided this
information in Schedule A to your interrogatory responses. I know you and
Tony have been discussing confidentiality, so I want to be sure that I can forward
Schedule A to Hotfile. Please confirm.
.
-----Original Message----From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Thompson, Rod (27) x4445
Subject: RE: Disney v. Hotfile

Rod, on point #2, I understand that you are taking some position that the list of files is relevant to 
defendants’ discovery responses.  However, you’ve still not identified what the basis of that 
position is, much less identified the request for which you think it matters.  As I noted below, that 
information is not relevant to defendants’ responses.  Defendants have no basis for delaying their 
production based on an alleged need for this information, nor must they “necessarily” do so.  

‐Duane

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 7:49 AM
To: Pozza, Duane
Subject: RE: Disney v. Hotfile

Duane, I suspected that there was a typo.
1. We see no reason to agree to a start date for discovery as that will
necessarily depend on the category of information sought.
2. We disagree with your statement (as amended) that a list of the each of the
specific files (or links to those files) accused of infringing the 150 works
identified in the complaint is not needed to respond to discovery. If
Plaintiffs choose to withhold that list (which they obviously prepared before
filing suit) until they produce it in discovery, it will necessarily delay defendants
collection and review of documents. Yes, it is your call whether to provide it
early and informally, but it will have an affect on our response to your discovery
requests.
Rod
-----Original Message-----

7/22/2011

Message

Page 2 of 4

From: Pozza, Duane [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:02 PM
To: Thompson, Rod (27) x4445
Subject: RE: Disney v. Hotfile

Rod, there’s a typo in one sentence in my email below.  I’ve fixed it here: 

However, even if it was appropriate to provide that information outside the context of discovery, 
defendants do not need that information to provide a complete response to our documents 
requests, and your email does not explain how it would even be used in the review process.  

‐Duane

From: Pozza, Duane
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:41 AM
To: [e-mail]; Fabrizio, Steven B
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Disney v. Hotfile

Rod,

I am following up on our discussion Friday about proposed date limitations for the parties to use in 
responding to document requests, which is  addressed in your third point below.  I do not mean to 
re‐hash this discussion, but I do want to be clear on our position given the brief statement in the 
email below suggesting that the plaintiffs would not agree to a 1/1/08 start date for document 
responses.  I noted on the call that the plaintiffs cannot agree to a global 1/1/2009 start date for all 
requests, but I did suggest 1/1/2008 as a start date for both parties.  Defendants would not agree 
to that.  And given that the parties have not been able to agree on a start date for responding to all 
requests (whether or not that this is the same for both parties), we are left discussing this category 
by category, but I don’t necessarily agree that that approach makes “more sense” in the abstract.  

On a related note, in your email to me last night you requested that plaintiffs provide information 
about certain Hotfile links they have identified, outside the discovery process, in order to 
“facilitate” your client’s review of responsive documents.  However, even if it was appropriate to 
provide that information outside the context of discovery, defendants do need that information to 
provide a complete response to our documents requests, and your email does not explain how it 
would even be used in the review process.  Your request in fact suggests that defendants intend to 
unreasonably limit the scope of their responses to at least some of our document requests.  To the 
extent you are seeking to narrow defendants’ response to our requests, we should separately 
discuss your basis for doing so.  

‐Duane

Duane Pozza
Jenner & Block LLP
1099 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412

7/22/2011

Message

Page 3 of 4

Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
www.jenner.com

CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:05 PM
To: Pozza, Duane; Fabrizio, Steven B
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Disney v. Hotfile

Duane,
This follows up our conversation earlier today on several topics.
First, you asked on behalf of the Plaintiffs for another extension of time to
exchange the initial Rule 26 disclosures. Defendants have previously agreed to a
10-day extension up until next Monday, April 25, 2011 on condition that the 10day delay would not be used as a ground for Plaintiffs to oppose a possible
motion to transfer to California. Frankly, we were strongly inclined to refuse this
courtesy as the Plaintiffs refused a similar request last week to extend the time for
Lemuria to respond to the subpoena served on it. Nevertheless, in view of your
representation of inconvenience caused by need to coordinate with your clients
over the holiday weekend, and hoping to establish a climate for future reciprocal
courtesy, Defendants agree to a further one-week extension until Monday, May 2,
2011 for the exchange of initial Rule 26 disclosures with the same caveat that the
additional seven-day delay will not be used as a ground to oppose a transfer
motion. Enjoy the weekend.
Second, with respect to the Rule 30(b)(6) of Warner Bros., you indicated that
Steve Fabrizio would be in the position to discuss scheduling a date certain with
me upon his return to the office next week. My last email to Steve of subject (of
April 13) is attached for reference. As requested therein, we would like to
proceed with a deposition on topics 1 through 5, 10 and 13 of the deposition
notice. With respect to our related request that Warner Bros. give priority to the
document production related to those same categories--1 through 5, 10 and 13 of
the deposition notice--you suggested that it was possible but the agreement
should be reciprocal. That is, Warner Bros. would agree to give priority to
producing documents responsive to those subject on condition that Hotfile would
do the same. In this way we would have documents from both parties in time for
use at the deposition. Subject to confirmation with my clients, I believe your

7/22/2011

Message

Page 4 of 4

proposal should be acceptable and I look forward to working out a schedule with
Steve for both the production of documents and the deposition of Warner Bros.
Third, Plaintiffs cannot agree to 1/1/08 as the
presumptive start date for document discovery. We agreed that it made more
sense to look at the requests, category by category, to evaluate a reasonable
starting date.

<<RE: Disney, et al., v. Hotfile, et al.>>

Roderick M. Thompson
Attorney at Law
______________________________

Farella Braun + Martel LLP
RUSS BUILDING
235 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO / CA 94104
______________________________
T 415.954.4400
D 415.954.4445
F 415.954.4480

www.fbm.com

7/22/2011